Philosophy Questions
Philosophy Questions
Compare and contrast the views of John Searle and Rene Descartes on dualism.
For Rene Descartes’ dualism is Spiritual; for John Searle, it’s Physical. Descartes believes the mind has consciousness and with that power we can say that the ‘seat-of-intelligence’ belongs to the brain. He also believes that through this we acquire self awareness, but for Searle, consciousness is not only because of the brain. Though brains cause consciousness, he points out that the brain is not the only thing that can produce consciousness. He even states that if ever we built an artificial machine that has consciousness. it further proves the point. He also says that the relationship between the consciousness and the body can cause casual possibilities of the mind giving abilities to form representations, which should not be confused with intention. They both tackle the “mind-body” problem.
Compare and contrast the views of George Berkeley and Thomas Hobbes on the mind.
For George Berkeley, ideas and objects cannot be compared. They are too different in concept. He believes that the mind produces ideas and physically, objects are turned to an idea. He cites an example with abstract ideas like taste and smell. These things vary depending on the human person’s perception or idea; thus, they cannot be compared. The abstract ideas exist only in the mind. There is no such thing as objective ideas. Speaking of particular qualities will always be subjective.
For Thomas Hobbes, the mind is all about ‘Materialism.’ It states the belief that the only thing that truly exists is matter, and everything will cause material interactions. They are all physical interactions. If Berkeley believes that there are no physical objects, Hobbes disagrees.
Materialism is a theory saying that the only basic reality is physical matter. All other beings, processes, feelings, minds, and phenomena or even free will can be accounted for as manifestations of matter. As such, I think that free will does not have a place in materialism. If previous events dictate the future, then free will is nothing, as what happens next is already planned for you.
Explain what David Hume means by saying that we have no evidence of the self. How is Hume’s view related to Milarepa’s on this subject?
David Humes says you can never know “the self” because it is constantly changing; thus, there will never be an evidence to point out what the real self is. Evidence to one will not be evidence to the other, especially since one’s self will change eventually. Milarepa, on the other hand, is a great Tibetan Yogi who also believes that the self does not exist.
If a computer app beats you every time you play chess, is the computer smarter than you? Does your computer think?
Thinking and analyzing using specific programs or pre-sets or systems is not thinking. The computer is not smarter than you. The occasion, emotion, mental state or any other affecting variables should be considered so, no, the computer is not smarter than you nor is it thinking.
Is free will possible if there is such a thing as God’s plan?
Yes, God’s plan in my understanding consists of limitless possibilities based on the choices you make in life. Looking at the world today, you’ll see how people stray-away from God’s plans. In straying away from His plans, we see the proof of our own free will. The madness in this world is proof of our free will because God’s will is always good, and in not choosing it, we divulge ourselves into evil. It is a mysterious concept none can explain fully. but in the little way my mind works, I see Free will and God’s plan this way -- that we each have our own journey and every time we choose, any time we use our free will, we face two roads in front of us -- one leading to God’s plans for us; the other leading to all the evils of the world. As we continue our journey, we face limitless 2-road-decisions and we can always freely choose God’s plan, even if we’ve chosen the wrong way for thousands of times. We always face two roads until our last breath: God’s will or our will – it’s always free will.
Explain the paradox of Buridan’s donkey and what Spinoza makes of this paradox.
The Paradox provides a theoretical situation where a donkey is close to death because of starvation. It is then given a choice to go for a stack of hay or a pail of water, with precisely the same distance away from it. The paradox implies that the donkey dies because it will go for whatever is closer, but given the same distance no rational decision could be made, so it dies. Spinoza implies that someone given 2 options, which are equilibrium or totally the same, cannot use rationality, and so they do not function fully.
In what sense does Alyosha Karamazov realize that he is free in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.
True freedom for Alyosha came with the revelation of having his own decision. When he came to a point when he found out that the choice would always be in his hands, particularly after he followed the steps of Christ -- self-emptying, surrendering to the Father’s will and living with solidarity in the path of God’s plans. It further occurred to Him when he came to a sense of doubt, questioning the mysteries of His faith and why everything that happened- happened. Upon moving on and stepping forward, he emerged as someone who chooses his own path, what to believe and not to believe. He is the one who makes his own destiny.
For existentialists from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, in what sense are human beings outside determinism?
Humans are outside determinism because they are physical. Existentialists like Dostoyevsky and Sartre believe that humans are not tied to the laws of nature nor are they limited by physics when it determines the turn of events that came from previous phenomena. Man will never be tied to the past or future because of their freedom to choose what action to do or what to pursue. With their consciousness, they make their simple reason and influence by asserting that ‘nothing’ determines their future; thus, they are outside determinism.
Explain, compare, and contrast the views of Anselm and Gaunilo regarding the Ontological argument.
Anselm believes in the ontological argument, a philosophical case for the proof of God’s existence where God is perfect because a perfect being must exist in the cosmos. However, Gaunilo, a contemporary monk of St. Anselm, opposes this view. Gaunilo refuses to believe that God is an exception to the rule, pointing out the theory of the ‘perfect island’ indicates that the perfect island must exist for if it did not, then it would be possible to conceive of an island greater than that island and greater than that which no greater can be conceived. This is absurd. As such, the ontological argument falls. However, Anselm thinks otherwise. For him, there should be a being that nothing can be greater than, because if nothing like that is present then there is a possibility to conceive of an existent God, which would be greater than that which no greater can be conceived. This, too, is absurd.
Explain and evaluate the views of Freud and Nietzsche, on the rationality of religious belief.
Nietzsche is famous for his statement ‘God is Dead,’ making a point of God’s non-existence. For him, the power belongs to the people – giving us endless opportunities and limitless possibilities if we do not fable a perfect being and worship him, waiting for him to control our lives with religious rules and traditions. Sigmund Freud, on the other hand, leans on the psychological part where he views the belief of God as wishful thinking, making it a diversion from the realities of life. Also, he points out that the notion of life after death makes people feel better for they have something to look forward to after this life.
Explain and evaluate the views of Tolstoy and Kierkegaard, on the rationality of religious belief.
Both men believed in the existence of God. For Tolstoy, who spent his life looking for the meaning of it, the answer came in the end. Upon discovering the lack of reason for living, he almost gave up but faith in religion. However, God gave him a new sense of purpose. Even with its mysteries the passion of faith made him believe in life. On the other hand, Kierkegaard thinks that people will never understand the concept of God. He accepts the mystery of it, though, and believes in it. Understanding God is impossible for the human brain to comprehend, but that does not mean he does not exist.
Explain and evaluate Pascal’s Wager. Would belief based on such an argument get you into heaven?
This will depend on your perception of heaven. Pascal thinks that its safer to believe in God as we live in this world because if he exists then we go to heaven because we would be living according to God’s law. We may lose some or get some, but in the end, we are saved. This would be in contrast to living without the belief of God where we live happily and however we want in this world. However, in the end, we would face a gruesome consequence in consideration of the probability that God exists. In this regard, the first choice is the better one. For some, going to heaven should be because of a genuine belief in God and His plans. For others, it’s just plain old believing. As such, the question on how you get to heaven actually depends on your perception. In reality, nobody knows the answer with certainty and proof.
Explain and evaluate William Paley’s version of the design argument.
His analogy is the ‘watchmaker analogy,’ where he believes that for a world to be created, one must have created and designed it. It also leans toward the natural theory where the universe is an intelligent design by an intelligent designer – which is God.
Explain and evaluate the problem of evil.
This questions the existence of an all knowing, loving and all powerful God. If God is present why does evil exist? The simple explanation I can think of is our free will. God created everything good but upon our own choice of not picking Him, we choose the exact opposite – which is not good: evil. We create evil for not choosing good in the same way that darkness exists when light vanishes.
